Next Article in Journal
The Benthic Quality Index to Assess Water Quality of Lakes May Be Affected by Confounding Environmental Features
Next Article in Special Issue
Effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions in Mitigating Flood Hazard in a Mediterranean Peri-Urban Catchment
Previous Article in Journal
Drag Force Modeling of Surface Wave Dissipation by a Vegetation Field
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Water Level Decline in Lake Urmia, Iran, on Local Climate Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/w12092518
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Use of Straw Mulches to Mitigate Soil Erosion under Different Antecedent Soil Moistures

by
Ataollah Kavian
1,*,
Mahin Kalehhouei
2,
Leila Gholami
1,
Zeinab Jafarian
3,
Maziar Mohammadi
2 and
Jesús Rodrigo-Comino
4,5
1
Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Sari 68984, Iran
2
Department of Watershed Management Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Nour, Mazandaran 14115, Iran
3
Department of Rangeland Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Sari 68984, Iran
4
Soil Erosion and Degradation Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
5
Department of Physical Geography, Trier University, 54286 Trier, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(9), 2518; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092518
Submission received: 3 July 2020 / Revised: 27 August 2020 / Accepted: 3 September 2020 / Published: 9 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Land-Use Changes on Surface Hydrology and Water Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Straw mulch cover is one of the most important soil erosion control measures applied to reduce runoff and soil loss in cultivated areas. However, in developing countries such as Iran, without a clear tradition or knowledge about soil erosion control measures, the use of straw mulch is rare, and its impact in the most extended crops is not well understood. We investigated the separate and combined effects of colza (Brassica napus L.) and corn (Zea mays L.), to mitigate the activation of soil loss and runoff in sandy-loam soils, under different antecedent soil moisture conditions, in a rainfed plot in Northern Iran. Under laboratory conditions, we used a rainfall simulator device. The experiments were performed by using a rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1, with a duration of 10 min and an inclination of 30%, with three replications. These conditions were used to evaluate the soils under extreme meteorological and topographical conditions. Two types of straw mulch, colza and corn, separated and combined with three different cover levels (25, 50 and 75%) and four distinct antecedent soil moisture conditions (0, 15, 20 and 30%), were used. The results showed that the applied straw mulches had significant effects on the reduction of soil loss and sediment concentration, by almost 99%. The maximum reduction of soil loss and sediment concentration was observed for the treatments with 0% moisture and 75% of corn, colza + corn and colza, with a reduction of 93.8, 92.2 and 84.9% for soil loss, respectively, and 91.1, 85.7 and, 60.7% for sediment concentration, respectively. The maximum reduction of runoff was also obtained with 0% soil moisture and a cover of 75%, reducing 62.5, 48.5 and 34.8% for colza, colza + corn and corn, respectively. The corn straw mulch showed the highest effectivity on reducing soil loss and sediment concentration toward colza treatment. But the colza straw mulch showed the best results on reducing runoff toward corn treatment. We conclude that the application of straw mulch is affordable and useful in reducing soil loss and runoff, instead of bare soils.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, soil erosion by water is considered one of the major threats to soil resources worldwide [1,2]. Soil erosion in agricultural areas is a complex and, on several occasions, gradual process that causes a loss of fertility, productivity and quality of the final product [3,4]. To better understand hydrological responses at the pedon and watershed scales, soil erosion mechanisms must be specifically assessed considering a large number of influencing factors on controlling runoff generation and soil erosion, such as antecedent soil moisture, drainage, infiltration, roughness, rainfall characteristics (amount and intensity), soil type, topography and human modifications [5,6,7,8,9,10]. The measurement of soil and water losses is one of the most important steps to develop successful soil-conservation practices and efficient land-management practices after drastic land-use changes [11,12]. Several methods are being used to assess soil erosion and develop control measures in agricultural fields. The small and portable rainfall simulators are considered to be useful instruments for the measurement of the initial process and activation, which can help to prevent and foresee soil and water responses at the pedon scale to be extrapolated for larger areas [13,14,15,16].
Iran, located in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world, manifests highly sensitive formations toward water erosion [17]. Recent investigations focused on soil erosion forms such as gullies, rills, aeolian processes, soil depletion or landslides [18,19,20,21]. Annual soil loss due to water erosion processes is estimated at 16 t per hectare year−1 [22]. Several human activities and environmental changes are affecting Iranian soils, such as intensive tillage, grazing or abandonment, and leaving the soils bare and not protected against rainfall and wind impacts [23,24,25,26]. On the other hand, fortunately, there are various groups applying soil conservation measures, but some methods in bare soils or degraded hillslopes need a long time to be established to show effective results [27]. Different mulch types (including straw mulch, compost, wood chips, vermicompost, biochar, polyacrylamide, polyvenilacetate and plastic film) are applied to reduce or stop runoff and soil loss [28,29,30,31]. Among these materials, straw mulch has shown similar effects than vegetation cover to mitigate soil erosion [32].
Soil conservation practices involving plant-residue cover (straw mulch) have proven that using straw mulch is one of the best management practices (BMPs) for maintenance of soil quality [33]. There are numerous studies about the impacts of straw mulch on soil characteristics (soil aggregate stability, soil structure and surface sealing), hydrological responses (soil moisture, infiltration and runoff changes) and soil loss and sediment concentration (e.g., see References [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]). Recent studies showed that straw mulch could decrease the raindrop impacts and reduce soil loss by absorbing kinetic energy during the splash effect [42]. Several researchers stated that the straw mulch could also conserve soil moisture along the surface [43], favor the organic-matter generation [44] and, subsequently, reduce the amount of runoff [45] and soil loss [46]. Despite this, it is well-demonstrated that changing runoff and soil loss dynamics largely depends on previous soil conditions and topographical characteristics (e.g., see References [47,48,49,50,51,52,53]). Related to soil moisture content, several researchers stated that the increase in this parameter can enhance the runoff generation and soil loss by 60% [54]. These results were also reported by Gholami et al. [55], with the application biochar on changing runoff and soil loss in North Iran. In other parts of the world, it was also evident. For instance, Mannering and Meye [56] and Adams [35] showed that the straw mulch could reduce soil loss at the plot scale. Another example is the research conducted by DeHaan [57], who simulated the role of different mulch application rates in reducing water erosion and runoff rates. The runoff rates were 13 times lower on land mulched than on bare soils, after harvesting. To reduce the effects of fire, Poulenard et al. [58] studied soil loss by using rainfall simulation experiments for the páramos in Colombia, considering the effects of tillage and burning at the plot scale. They stated that the sediment loss was very low when mulches were used in the first year after the fire. The use of corn residual was also tested in Tinaja, by Ruy et al. [59], who concluded that, considering treatments of bare soils, no-tilled and no planted with 1.5 t ha−1 of residue mulch, direct drilling of corn with 1.5 and 4.5 t ha−1 of residue mulch. This straw mulch could decrease runoff and soil loss drastically. Adekalu et al. [36] stated that Pennisetum purpureum mulching decreased soil loss, while increased if there was an increase in slope. Groen and Woods [60] showed that straw-mulch usage at a rate of 2.24 t ha−1 in plots of 0.5 m2 was able to decrease soil loss in post-wildfire and Northwestern Montana. Jiang et al. [61] reported that the wheat straw reduced soil erosion by 95%, compared to bare soils. Gholami et al. [62] studied the effect of straw mulch on splash erosion, runoff and soil loss. The results showed that the straw mulch had a significant effect (95%) in changing runoff and soil loss.
The literature verified the significant factors affecting the activation of soil loss under different soil erosion control measures, under laboratory conditions. For instance, Wang et al. [63] investigated the effects of wheat straw mulch on changing soil loss in laboratory plots under simulated rainfall. These results revealed that the straw mulch had an effective role in reducing soil loss and could be used to develop erosion control measures in the Loess Plateau region. Niziolomski et al. [64] investigated the interactive effect of mulch and shallow soil disturbance on reducing runoff and soil loss in a commercial asparagus field near Ross-on-Wye (England, UK). However, the results indicated that the efficacy of the tested treatments was not adequate for the reduction of soil loss.
However, not only natural materials are used to reduce soil and water losses but also artificial materials, such as geotextiles and polymers [65,66,67]. Babcock and McLaughlin [68] published representative studies related to the effect of straw mulch, hydro-mulch and polyacrylamide (PAM) on control soil loss, under rainfall simulation conditions. The best results were obtained by using hydro-mulch plus PAM. However, the results also showed that adding PAM to a less expensive straw mulch produced similar or better results than the hydro-mulch application without PAM. Chen et al. [69] investigated the effects of plastic film combined with straw mulch on the soil moisture, temperature, grain yield and water-use efficiency (WUE) of winter wheat in the drylands of the Loess Plateau of China. The results indicated that the plastic film, combined with straw mulch, variably increased the grain yield (mean 35%) and WUE (mean 25%), with a slight increase of evapotranspiration (mean 8%), as compared to conventional practices. Tang et al. [70] surveyed the effects of rice straw mulch and soybean planting around maize blocks on yields on runoff amount. Treatments of the control without fertilization and agronomic measures (CK), chemical fertilizer application without agronomic measures (CF), chemical fertilizer combined with rice-straw mulching (CF + R), chemical fertilizer combined with planting soybean around the cultivated block (CF + S), chemical fertilizer combined with rice-straw mulching and planting soybeans around the cultivated block (CF + R + S) were considered. Their results showed that, compared to CF, the yield of maize treated with CF + R and CF + R + S could increase by 16.0 and 23.2% (p < 0.05). The total runoff volume during the growth period of maize significantly decreases by 18.5 and 22.0%. Although artificial mulches can greatly improve the soil conditions, their prices and availability, especially in developing countries, make them difficult to be widely applied for farmers.
Most previous researchers studied the effect of straw mulch on various aspects; nonetheless, few studies are available about separate and combined effects of different mulches, considering different antecedent soil conditions on soil loss and water losses [62]. Therefore, the main goal of this research was to study the separate and combined effects of two different types of straw mulch that are rarely studied, namely colza and corn, on the activation of soil erosion processes, while considering different antecedent soil moistures under extreme rainfall conditions and on steep slopes. The experiments were conducted in an eroded sandy-loam soil, sampled in the region of Dasht-e-Naz, Sari City, in Northern Iran. The experiments were performed by using a rainfall simulator under laboratory conditions, with a rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1 and 30% of inclination.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Preparation and Erosion Plots

Soil samples were collected from the top layer (0–20 cm) of a typical cultivated field in the Dasht-e-Naz, Sari City (36°66′ latitude and 53°19′ longitude), and transported to the simulation laboratory of Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU). The soil was dried in open areas, to reach optimum moisture content and maintain the relative stability of soil aggregates [71] (Figure 1a). Then, the soil was sieved at 4 mm [72], to increase the homogeneity of the soil samples [73]. The soil moisture was measured with a soil moisture-meter (GMK-770s, G-WON HIGHTECH CO-LTD. Seoul, Korea). Soil analysis included soil texture determined by Bouyoucos Hydrometer method [74] and soil pH determined in a 1:2.5 soil:water ratio. Soil organic carbon was determined by Walkley-and-Black method [75]. Soil texture, organic matter, organic carbon, pH and electrical conductivity were sandy-loam, 1.68%, 0.98%, 7.37% and 0.88 dS/cm, respectively. The plots used are characterized by some specific dimensions of 1 × 0.5 × 0.2 m and steep slopes of 30%. A layer with a 10 cm thick plot was filled with pumice grains, to simulate natural drainage condition [76] (Figure 1b). Then, the upper layer of the plot was filled with soil. Then, it was compacted, using a PVC roller, to make its specific bulk density similar to natural conditions [77].

2.2. Straw Mulch and Soil Moisture

The colza (Brassica napus L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) straw mulches were collected from rainfed agricultural lands in the Dasht-e-Naz region, Sari. The experiments were conducted by using straw mulch with different cover levels, i.e., 25, 50 and 75%. The soils were first air-dried to the lowest possible moisture level (0%), then placed on plots and brought to 15, 20 and 30% ASM by spraying water [62]. The experiments were conducted with a separation of straw mulches (colza and corn) and combined ones (colza + corn) under each soil moisture condition (Figure 2). Table 1 presents the separate and combined treatments per experiment.

2.3. Rainfall Simulator and Rainfall Intensity

The rainfall simulator is situated on an A-frame metal structure, in a laboratory. The rainfall simulator has different parts, such as the water supply system, tow nozzles, water collection system and one control board. The telescopic legs allow for the selected height of the nozzles to be changed between 2 and 2.7 m. The frame rainfall has two movable nozzles: Veejet 80100 [78,79], with a diameter of 4 mm [77]. The water pressure is set up with a pressure gauge from 0 to 160 KPa that is installed in the transfer hose and nozzles. Moreover, a control board was designed with a program setting of ten different precipitation events. This control board can be used to set the velocity fluctuation of the nozzles with a precipitation duration from 1 min to 1 h and an oscillation angle by the nozzles from 0° to 60° (Figure 3). The rainfall simulator height, pressure, distance and angle of the nozzles are 2 m, 60 KPa, 70 cm and 45 degrees, respectively, and the rainfall simulator can generate drops with a diameter from 0.2 to 9.9 mm, with a fall velocity that can vary from 0.8 to 9.2 m s−1 for different diameter classes, from a height of 0.5 m above the soil surface [74]. For this experiment, the rainfall intensity selected was 50 mm h−1, with a duration of 10 min, to simulate a heavy rainfall event [80]. The rainfall intensity was applied according to the curves of the Intensity–Duration–Frequency of Sari Synoptic Station, which has a return period of 20 years.

2.4. Measurement of Runoff and Soil Loss

The runoff volume was collected at the outlet of each plot, at intervals of 2 min, for a total duration of 10 min, with three replications. Then, the volume of runoff was measured by standard gauged cylinders. It is important to mention that each run was conducted by using a new soil surface and straw mulches [36]. Then, the amounts of soil loss were estimated by using the decantation procedure and oven-dried at 105 °C for 24 h, e.g., [73,81,82]. The sediment mean concentration was obtained by dividing the total soil loss by the runoff volume at each sample [83] (Figure 4).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis under separate and combined straw mulches at various soil moisture conditions was carried out, using the SPSS v. 22 (software IBM, New York, NY, USA). First, the normality test was performed, using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, at a level of 0.05 [83,84,85,86,87]. Then, an ANOVA test was used based on linear regressions and general linear models (GLM), to quantify the interaction between the dependent variables and the independent ones. Finally, the determination of homogeneous subgroups was included, to detect which variables can affect the final soil erosion results, using the Duncan test [62].

3. Results

3.1. Soil Loss, Sediment Concentration and Runoff

The results showed that the colza, corn and colza + corn with the cover rate of 75% were the most effective at decreasing soil loss and sediment concentration (Table 1 and Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). The results revealed that the colza, corn and colza + corn showed a significant effect, at a level of 99%, in reducing soil loss and sediment concentrations (Table 2). In general, under higher antecedent soil moisture content, 75% cover of each straw mulch treatment obtained the best results reducing soil loss, sediment concentration and runoff. According to the result of Table 1, under antecedent soil moisture conditions from 0 to 30%, in the control plot soil loss, sediment concentration and runoff increased from 193 to 522 g, from 56 to 94 g L−1 and from 3.5, to 5.5 L, respectively. The results of mean runoff, sediment concentrations and soil loss showed that the colza straw mulch, using a cover from 25 to 75%, reduced runoff from 3.9 to 2.8 L, sediment concentration from 44 to 22.3 g L−1, and soil loss from 173.5 to 59.5 g. Using corn straw mulch with a cover from 25 to 75%, runoff decreased from 4.3 to 3.6 L, sediment concentration from 29.5 to 8.25 g L−1 and soil loss from 136.5 to 32.5 g. Finally, the combination of colza + corn straw mulches from 25 to 75% cover reduced the runoff from 3.6 to 2.8 L, sediment concentration from 45.3 to 15 g L−1 and soil loss from 478.3 to 51.2 g.

3.2. Soil Erosion Rates, Considering Different Soil Moisture Conditions and Straw Mulches

Table 3 shows that, by increasing the level of colza straw mulch from 25 to 75%, the amount of soil loss increased 36.1, 69.6 and 78.7%; sediment concentration reached 27.6, 51.5 and 62.4%; and runoff obtained 12.2, 32.4 and 40.5%, respectively. Using corn straw mulch, from 25 to 75% of cover, these rates relatively decreased 55.1, 77.1 and 88.9% in soil loss; 54.5, 75.1 and 86.9% in sediment concentration; and 3.2, 11.1 and 19.3% in the runoff. The combination of colza + corn showed that various soil moisture contents decreased 41.9, 62.4 and 83.7% in soil loss; 28.3, 49.3% and 76.8% in sediment concentration; and 18.4, 27.1 and 36.5% in the runoff. According to these results, corn straw mulch showed more advantages to reduce soil loss and sediment concentration, compared to colza straw mulch, and also than the combination of colza + corn straw mulches.
On the other hand, the results showed that the soil loss and sediment concentration increased when soil moisture increased, being less the positive effect of straw mulches (Table 1, Figure 5 and Figure 7). The measurements showed that soil moisture 30% was able to decrease the maximum amount of soil loss, registering from 0 to 30%, with rates of 193, 202, 266 and 522 g, respectively, and sediment concentrations of 56, 51, 56 and 94 g L−1, respectively. The results revealed that the various soil moistures showed a significant effect on changing soil loss and sediment concentration, at a level of 99% (Table 2).
Finally, in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7, we demonstrate how soil moisture values of 0, 15, 20 and 30% affect the application of colza, corn and colza + corn straw mulches to reduce soil erosion. The results confirmed that, for the highest level of soil moisture (30%), where soil erosion is more intense, the application of the 75% mulch is effective.

4. Discussion

4.1. Straw Mulches Effect on Changes in Soil Loss and Sediment Concentration

The results showed that both straw mulches (colza and corn) or the combined ones (colza + corn) could reduce soil loss and sediment concentration, as compared to the control treatment, as other studies also confirmed with other types [36,87,88,89,90,91]. The results of different straw mulch applications with levels of 75% showed that the runoff could not transport soil particles to the outlet [45]. Moreover, applied straw mulches prevented the direct effect of raindrops on the soil surface, which was observed during the experiments, as other authors found [45]. This effect indicates that this amendment could increase the roughness and cover of the soil surface, as well as reduce the kinetic energy of rainfalls and the destruction of soil aggregates [92,93,94]. Our results showed that the straw mulches had a clear significant effect on reducing soil loss and sediment concentration at a level of 99%. In some cases, the separated particles of soils were surface-deposited behind and below the straw mulches; thus, the amount of sediment concentration was highly reduced toward the outlet of the control plots [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]. The results of changes in per cent values showed that the maximum reduction of soil loss and sediment concentration was obtained applying 75% of cover with a soil moisture conditions of 0%. This confirms that the unique use of one mulch type can be enough to mitigate the activation of soil erosion processes with dry soils. The results also stated that increasing the level of straw mulches had a higher effect on decreasing soil loss and sediment concentration, which was necessary when the antecedent soil moisture increased. These results agreed with previous studies, including Sadeghi et al. [96], Kavian et al. [29] and Gholami et al. [62]. The homogenization results showed that straw mulch with rates of 75% (four subgroups) had the most important impact on reducing soil loss and sediment concentration at separate and combined straw mulches (Figure 5 and Figure 7). Naturally, it directly affects the costs and the amount of work invested in plots with this soil erosion control measures. Therefore, policies and subsidies should be designed and planned to help the farmers and owners to apply this sustainable control measure. This also agrees with recent publications where farmers were surveyed and are willing to apply the straw mulches if they are subsidized [96,97,98,99].

4.2. Antecedent Soil Moisture Effect on Changes in Soil Loss and Sediment Concentration

The results of Table 1 showed that the increase in soil moisture could affect soil loss and sediment concentration [5]. Increasing soil moisture caused the reduction of infiltration rates, possibly due to the resistance between soil aggregates and soil stability and the saturation of the soil [85]. Moreover, by increasing soil moisture, the stability of soil aggregate could decrease and, therefore, the amount of soil loss and sediment concentration would 0increase [100]. When the soil was air-dried (0% soil moisture), the major part of rainfall was getting wet rapidly, but it conserved the infiltration rate, and, therefore, runoff activation was slower. However, when the soil moisture was higher, runoff activation was faster, which also affected soil loss transported into the outlet [51]. The results showed that the soil moisture had a significant effect on changing soil loss and sediment concentration at a level of 99%. The results stated that the soil moisture with the level of 30% had a major effect on increasing soil loss in the treatments of soil moisture from 0 to 30%, with rates of 193, 202, 266 and 522 g, respectively, and sediment concentration of 56, 51, 56 and 94 g L−1, respectively. However, at each of the moisture levels, after application of each straw mulch (colza and corn) or combined ones (colza + corn), the decrease in soil loss and sediment concentration, compared to the control treatment, was drastic.
The results stated that the corn straw at all the applied rates was more effective at decreasing soil loss and sediment concentration, considering different increases in soil moistures. The homogenization results showed that, among different soil moisture contents, 30% had effective impacts on reducing soil loss and sediment concentration at both separate and combined straw mulch application, coinciding with other authors [101,102].
The ANOVA results revealed that the effect of various soil moistures with the four levels of soil moisture of air-dried of 15, 20 and 30% was significant on changing soil loss and sediment concentration (R2 = 0.99). Some researchers also stated the same results, including Orsham et al. [103], Ziadat and Taimeh [50] and Khaledi Darvishan et al. [51]. Considering this, in the future, the logical next step should be focused on performing rainfall simulation experiments or soil erosion monitoring with plots under real conditions applying these mulches to verify if these results are or not correct to be implemented in agricultural and soil management plans.

5. Conclusions

According to the results, corn straw mulch, at different rates of the application, was able to get the best results to decrease soil loss and sediment concentration. The results also confirmed that soil moisture had a significant effect on increasing soil loss and sediment concentration at a level of 99%, and the use of straw mulch helped in reducing it. The measurements concluded that soil moisture with a level of 30% had the highest negative effect by increasing soil loss. Therefore, to select the best conservation measure, in this case, corn straw mulch, it is worthy to highlight that the level of antecedent soil moisture can highly affect its ability to minimize the impacts of soil erosion. In the future, the positive effects of these mulches must also be tested under real conditions and non-controlled agricultural environments. A big number of experiments must also be conducted in order to detect the variability under different topographical conditions, e.g., higher or lower slopes, or soil types with diverse soil textures and organic matter contents. However, these results give new positive insights into the use of cheap materials in developing countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K., M.K. and L.G.; methodology, A.K., L.G. and Z.J.; software, M.K., L.G., and Z.J.; interpretation, A.K., Z.J. and J.R.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K., M.K., L.G., M.M. and J.R.-C. writing—review and editing, A.K., L.G. and J.R.-C.; supervision, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received grant from Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Panagos, P.; Katsoyiannis, A. Soil erosion modelling: The new challenges as the result of policy developments in Europe. Environ. Res. 2019, 172, 470–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Garcia-Ruiz, J.M.; Beguería, S.; Nadal-Romero, E.; González-Hidalgo, J.C.; Lana-Renault, N.; Sanjuan, Y. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology 2015, 239, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Lin, C.; Tu, S.; Huang, J.; Chen, Y. The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple-soil area of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 105, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mwango, S.B.; Msanya, B.M.; Mtakwa, P.W.; Kimaro, D.N.; Deckers, J.; Poesen, J. Effectiveness of Mulching under Miraba in Controlling Soil Erosion, Fertility Restoration and Crop Yield in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 27, 1266–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Castillo, V.M.; Gómez-Plaza, A.; Martínez-Mena, M. The role of antecedent soil water content in the runoff response of semiarid catchments: A simulation approach. J. Hydrol. 2003, 284, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Banasik, K.; Gorski, D.; Popek, Z.; Hejduk, L. Estimating the annual sediment yield of a small agricultural catchment in central Poland. In Erosion and Sediments Yields in the Changing Environment, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS Chengdu, China, 11–15 October 2012; IAHS Publ: Wallingford, UK, 2012; Volume 356, pp. 267–275. [Google Scholar]
  7. Krajewski, A.; Lee, H.; Hejduk, L.; Banasik, K. Predicted small catchment responses to heavy rainfalls with SEGMO and two sets of model parameters. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Land Reclam. 2014, 46, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kavian, A.; Sabet, S.H.; Solaimani, K.; Jafari, B. Simulating the effects of land use changes on soil erosion using RUSLE model. Geocarto Int. 2016, 32, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Lima, J.; Santos, L.; Mujtaba, B.; De Lima, M.I.P. Laboratory assessment of the influence of rice straw mulch size on soil loss. Adv. Geosci. 2019, 48, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Yakupoğlu, T.; Dindaroğlu, T.; Terol, E.; Mora-Navarro, G.; Arabameri, A.; Radziemska, M.; Novara, A.; Kavian, A.; et al. Tillage Versus No-Tillage. Soil Properties and Hydrology in an Organic Persimmon Farm in Eastern Iberian Peninsula. Water 2020, 12, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ayele, G.T.; Tebeje, A.K.; Demisse, S.S.; Belete, M.A.; Jemberrie, M.A.; Teshome, W.M.; Mengistu, D.T.; Teshale, E.Z. Time Series Land Cover Mapping and Change Detection Analysis Using Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing, Northern Ethiopia. Airsoil Water Res. 2018, 11, 1178622117751603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Pimentel, D.; Burgess, M. Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production. Agriculture 2013, 3, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Cerdà, A. Soil moisture regime under simulated rainfall in a three years abandoned filed in southeast Spain. Phys. Chem. Earth 1995, 20, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Iserloh, T.; Fister, W.; Seeger, M.; Willger, H.; Ries, J. A small portable rainfall simulator for reproducible experiments on soil erosion. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 124, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. Is the hillslope position relevant for runoff and soil loss activation under high rainfall conditions in vineyards? Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2020, 20, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Keesstra, S.D.; Cerdà, A. Soil Erosion as an Environmental Concern in Vineyards. The Case Study of Celler del Roure, Eastern Spain, by Means of Rainfall Simulation Experiments. Beverages 2018, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Arabkhedri, M. Report Research Project Estimate Special Deposition in the Country; Research Center Soil and Watershed Management: Tehran, Iran, 2001; p. 54. [Google Scholar]
  18. Arabameri, A.; Cerdà, A.; Pradhan, B.; Tiefenbacher, J.P.; Lombardo, L.; Bui, D.T. A methodological comparison of head-cut based gully erosion susceptibility models: Combined use of statistical and artificial intelligence. Geomorphology 2020, 359, 107136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pourghasemi, H.R.; Yousefi, S.; Kornejady, A.; Cerdà, A. Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ayoubi, S.; Mokhtari, J.; Mosaddeghi, M.R.; Zeraatpisheh, M. Erodibility of calcareous soils as influenced by land use and intrinsic soil properties in a semiarid region of central Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gholami, H.; Telfer, M.W.; Blake, W.H.; Fathabadi, A. Aeolian sediment fingerprinting using a Bayesian mixing model. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 2365–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Mosaffaie, J.; Talebi, A.A. Statistical View to the Water Erosion in Iran. Ext. Dev. Watershed Manag. 2014, 2, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  23. Besalatpour, A.A.; Hajabbasi, M.A.; Ayoubi, S.; Afyuni, M.; Jalalian, A.; Schulin, R. Soil shear strength prediction using intelligent systems: Artificial neural networks and an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Soil Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2012, 58, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ayoubi, S.; Jabbari, M.; Khademi, H. Multiple linear modeling between soil properties, magnetic susceptibility and heavy metals in various land uses. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2018, 4, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. MohammadKhan, S.; Ahmadi, H.; Jafari, M. Relationship between soil erosion, slope, parent material, and distance to road (Case study: Latian Watershed, Iran). Arab. J. Geosci. 2010, 4, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sadeghi, S.H.; Azari, M.; GhaderiVangah, B. Field evaluation of the Hillslope Erosion Model (HEM) in Iran. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 99, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kavian, A.; Mohammadi, M.; Gholami, L.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. Assessment of the Spatiotemporal Effects of Land Use Changes on Runoff and Nitrate Loads in the Talar River. Water 2018, 10, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jourgholami, M.; Abari, M.E. Effectiveness of sawdust and straw mulching on postharvest runoff and soil erosion of a skid trail in a mixed forest. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 109, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kavian, A.; Gholami, L.; Mohammadi, M.; Spalevic, V.; Soraki, M.F. Impact of Wheat Residue on Soil Erosion Processes. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2018, 46, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Khadem, A.; Raiesi, F. Response of soil alkaline phosphatase to biochar amendments: Changes in kinetic and thermodynamic characteristics. Geoderma 2019, 337, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adekiya, A.O.; Agbede, T.M.; Ejue, W.S.; Aboyeji, C.M.; Dunsin, O.; Aremu, C.O.; Owolabi, A.O.; Ajiboye, B.O.; Okunlola, O.F.; Adesola, O.O. Biochar, poultry manure and NPK fertilizer: Sole and combine application effects on soil properties and ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) performance in a tropical Alfisol. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Keesstra, S.D.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Novara, A.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Fernández, M.P.; Di Prima, S.; Cerdà, A. Straw mulch as a sustainable solution to decrease runoff and erosion in glyphosate-treated clementine plantations in Eastern Spain. An assessment using rainfall simulation experiments. Catena 2019, 174, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Prosdocimi, M.; Tarolli, P.; Cerdà, A. Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 161, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bernett, A.P.; Disketer, E.G.; Richardson, E.C. Evaluation of mulching methods for erosion control on newly prepared and seeded highway back slope. Agron. J. 1967, 59, 83–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adams, J.E. Influence of Mulches on Runoff, Erosion, and Soil Moisture Depletion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1966, 30, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adekalu, K.O.; Olorunfemi, I.; Osunbitan, J. Grass mulching effect on infiltration, surface runoff and soil loss of three agricultural soils in Nigeria. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 912–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Robichaud, P.; Jordan, P.; Lewis, S.; Ashmun, L.; Covert, S.; Brown, R. Evaluating the effectiveness of wood shred and agricultural straw mulches as a treatment to reduce post-wildfire hillslope erosion in southern British Columbia, Canada. Geomorphology 2013, 197, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Keesstra, S.D. An economic, perception and biophysical approach to the use of oat straw as mulch in Mediterranean rainfed agriculture land. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 108, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lin, J.; Zhu, G.; Wei, J.; Jiang, F.; Wang, M.-K.; Huang, Y.-H. Mulching effects on erosion from steep slopes and sediment particle size distributions of gully colluvial deposits. Catena 2018, 160, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Omidvar, E.; Hajizadeh, Z.; Ghasemieh, H. Sediment yield, runoff and hydraulic characteristics in straw and rock fragment covers. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Feng, J.; Wei, W.; Pan, D. Effects of rainfall and terracing-vegetation combinations on water erosion in a loess hilly area, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lu, R.; Liu, Y.-F.; Jia, C.; Huang, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, H.; Liu, B.-R.; Wang, Z.-J.; Zheng, J.; Wu, G.-L. Effects of mosaic-pattern shrub patches on runoff and sediment yield in a wind-water erosion crisscross region. Catena 2019, 174, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ji, S.; Unger, P.W. Soil Water Accumulation under Different Precipitation, Potential Evaporation, and Straw Mulch Conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. García-Orenes, F.; Guerrero, C.; Roldan, A.; Mataix-Solera, J.; Cerdà, A.; Campoy, M.; Zornoza, R.; Bárcenas, G.; Caravaca, F.; Bárcenas-Moreno, G. Soil microbial biomass and activity under different agricultural management systems in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 109, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Poesen, J.; Lavee, H. Effects of size and incorporation of synthetic mulch on runoff and sediment yield from interrils in a laboratory study with simulated rainfall. Soil Tillage Res. 1991, 21, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Morgan, R.P.C. Soil Erosion and Conservation; Longman Scientific and Technical: Harlow, UK, 1986; p. 298. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cammeraat, E.L.H. Scale dependent thresholds in hydrological and erosion response of a semi-arid catchment in southeast Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Luk, S.H. Effect of antecedent soil moisture content on rainwash erosion. Catena 1985, 12, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Govers, G.; Loch, R. Effects of initial water content and soil mechanical strength on the runoff erosion resistance of clay soils. Soil Res. 1993, 31, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ziadat, F.; Taimeh, A.Y. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Khaledi Darvishan, A.; Sadeghi, S.H.R.; Homaee, M.; Arabkhadri, M. Affectability of runoff threshold and coefficient from rainfall intensity and antecedent soil moisture content in laboratorial erosion plots. Iran Water Res. J. 2014, 8, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, J.; Zhang, F.; Wang, S.; Yang, M. Combined influences of wheat-seedling cover and antecedent soil moisture on sheet erosion in small-flumes. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 151, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sachs, E.; Sarah, P. Combined effect of rain temperature and antecedent soil moisture on runoff and erosion on Loess. Catena 2017, 158, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Truman, C.; Potter, T.; Nuti, R.; Franklin, D.; Bosch, D. Antecedent water content effects on runoff and sediment yields from two Coastal Plain Ultisols. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1189–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gholami, L.; Karimi, N.; Kavian, A. Soil and water conservation using biochar and various soil moisture in laboratory conditions. Catena 2019, 182, 104151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mannering, J.V.; Meyer, L.D. The Effects of Various Rates of Surface Mulch on Infiltration and Erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1963, 27, 84–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. DeHaan, R. Mulching for erosion control. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1970, 34, 928–931. [Google Scholar]
  58. Poulenard, J.; Podwojewski, P.; Janeau, J.-L.; Collinet, J. Runoff and soil erosion under rainfall simulation of Andisols from the Ecuadorian Páramo: Effect of tillage and burning. Catena 2001, 45, 185–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ruy, S.; Findeling, A.; Chadoeuf, J. Effect of mulching techniques on plot scale runoff: FDTF modeling and sensitivity analysis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 326, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Groen, A.H.; Woods, S.W. Effectiveness of aerial seeding and straw mulch for reducing post-wildfire erosion, north-western Montana, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jiang, L.; Dami, I.; Mathers, H.M.; Dick, W.A.; Doohan, D. The Effect of Straw Mulch on Simulated Simazine Leaching and Runoff. Weed Sci. 2011, 59, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gholami, L.; Sadeghi, S.H.; Homaee, M. Straw Mulching Effect on Splash Erosion, Runoff, and Sediment Yield from Eroded Plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 77, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, L.; Ma, B.; Wu, F. Effects of wheat stubble on runoff, infiltration, and erosion of farmland on the Loess Plateau, China, subjected to simulated rainfall. Solid Earth 2017, 8, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Niziolomski, J.C.; Simmons, R.W.; Rickson, R.J.; Hann, M.J. Efficacy of mulch and tillage options to reduce runoff and soil loss from asparagus interrows. Catena 2020, 191, 104557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yakupoğlu, T.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Cerdà, A. Potential Benefits of Polymers in Soil Erosion Control for Agronomical Plans: A Laboratory Experiment. Agronomy 2019, 9, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Giménez-Morera, A.; Sinoga, J.D.R.; Cerdà, A. The impact of cotton geotextiles on soil and water losses from Mediterranean rainfed agricultural land. Land Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Behzadfar, M.; Sadeghi, S.H.; Khanjani, M.J.; Hazbavi, Z. Effects of rates and time of zeolite application on controlling runoff generation and soil loss from a soil subjected to a freeze-thaw cycle. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017, 5, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Babcock, D.L.; McLaughlin, R. Erosion control effectiveness of straw, hydromulch, and polyacrylamide in a rainfall simulator. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2013, 68, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, Y.; Liu, T.; Tian, X.; Wang, X.; Li, M.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z. Effects of plastic film combined with straw mulch on grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in Loess Plateau. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 172, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tang, L.; Xie, Y.; Yang, W.; Huang, J.; Huang, Z.; He, S.; Rong, X. Effects of rice straw mulching and soybean planting around the maize block on maize yield, nutrient utilization and runoff loss. J. South. Agric. 2019, 50, 1204–1210. [Google Scholar]
  71. Fox, D.M.; Bryan, R.B. The relationship of soil loss by interrill erosion to slope gradient. Catena 2000, 38, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tang, Z.; Lei, T.; Yu, J.; Shainberg, I.; Mamedov, A.I.; Ben-Hur, M.; Levy, G.J. Runoff and Interrill Erosion in Sodic Soils Treated with Dry PAM and Phosphogypsum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kukal, S.S.; Sarkar, M. Laboratory simulation studies on splash erosion and crusting in relation to surface roughness and raindrop size. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2011, 59, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  74. Black, C.A.; Evans, D.D.; White, J.L.; Newsmonger, L.E.; Clarkem, F.E. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Wisconsin; American Society of Agronomy Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  75. Singh, R.S.; Tripathi, N.; Singh, S.K. Impact of degradation on nitrogen transformation in a forest ecosystem of India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 125, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Defersha, M.B.; Quraishi, S.; Melesse, A.M. The effect of slope steepness and antecedent moisture content on interrill erosion, runoff and sediment size distribution in the highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 2367–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kavian, A.; Mohammadi, M.; Cerdà, A.; Fallah, M.; Gholami, L. Design, manufacture and calibration of the SARI portable rainfall simulator for field and laboratory experiments. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 350–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Blanquies, J.; Scharff, M.; Hallock, B. The design and construction of a rainfall simulator. In Proceedings of the International Erosion Control Association (IECA), 34th Annual Conference and Expo, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 24–28 February 2003. [Google Scholar]
  79. Chouksey, A.; Lambey, V.; Nikam, B.R.; Aggarwal, S.P.; Dutta, S. Hydrological Modelling Using a Rainfall Simulator over an Experimental Hillslope Plot. Hydrology 2017, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kavian, A.; Alipour, A.; Soleimani, K.; Gholami, L.; Smith, P.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. The increase of rainfall erosivity and initial soil erosion processes due to rainfall acidification. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 33, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Cerdà, A. Effects of rock fragment cover on soil infiltration, interrill runoff and erosion. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2001, 52, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Spalevic, V. Impact of Land Use on Runoff and Soil Erosion in Polimlje. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wang, A.-P.; Li, F.-H.; Yang, S.-M. Effect of polyacrylamide application on runoff, erosion and soil nutrient loss under simulated rainfall. Pedosphere 2011, 21, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Geissen, V.; Sánchez-Hernández, R.; Kampichler, C.; Reyes, R.R.; Sepulveda-Lozada, A.; Ochoa-Goana, S.; De Jong, B.; Huerta-Lwanga, E.; Hernández-Daumas, S.; De Jong, B.H. Effects of land-use change on some properties of tropical soils—An example from Southeast Mexico. Geoderma 2009, 151, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Razali, N.M.; Wah, Y.B. Power comparisons of shapiro wilk, kolmogorov smirnov, lilliefors and anderson darling tests. J. Stat. Model. Anal. 2011, 2, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wei, Y.; Wu, X.; Xia, J.; Zeng, R.; Cai, C.; Wang, T. Dynamic study of infiltration rate for soils with varying degrees of degradation by water erosion. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2019, 7, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Macdonald, L.H.; Rough, D. Effectiveness of three post-fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 2989–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Tejada, M.; Gonzalez, J.L. Effects of Application of a By-Product of the Two-Step Olive Oil Mill Process on Maize Yield. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bhattacharyya, R.; Smets, T.; Fullen, M.A.; Poesen, J.; Booth, C. Effectiveness of geotextiles in reducing runoff and soil loss: A synthesis. Catena 2010, 81, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kukal, S.S.; Sarkar, M. Splash erosion and infiltration in relation to mulching and polyviny alcohol application in semiarid tropics. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2010, 56, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Prats, S.A.; Martins, M.A.; Malvar, M.C.; Ben-Hur, M.; Keizer, J.J. Polyacrylamide application versus forest residue mulching for reducing post-fire runoff and soil erosion. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Da Silva, A.M.; Moradi, E.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Cerdà, A. Spatial variability of soil roughness in persimmon plantations: A new combined ISUM (improved stock unearthing method) approach. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Seeger, M.; Errea, M.P.; Beguería, S.; Arnáez, J.; Martí, C.; García-Ruiz, J. Catchment soil moisture and rainfall characteristics as determinant factors for discharge/suspended sediment hysteretic loops in a small headwater catchment in the Spanish pyrenees. J. Hydrol. 2004, 288, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Miyata, S.; Kosugi, K.; Gomi, T.; Mizuyama, T. Effects of forest floor coverage on overland flow and soil erosion on hillslopes in Japanese cypress plantation forests. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, 06402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jordán, A.; Zavala, L.; Gil, J. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain. Catena 2010, 81, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sadeghi, S.H.; Hazbavi, Z.; Kiani-Harchegani, M. Controllability of runoff and soil loss from small plots treated by vinasse-produced biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 541, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sastre, B.; Barbero-Sierra, C.; Bienes, R.; Marques, M.; García-Díaz, A. Soil loss in an olive grove in Central Spain under cover crops and tillage treatments, and farmer perceptions. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 17, 873–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Novara, A.; Fernández, M.P.; Kapović-Solomun, M.; Keesstra, S.D. Policies can help to apply successful strategies to control soil and water losses. The case of chipped pruned branches (CPB) in Mediterranean citrus plantations. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 734–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Panagos, P.; Pourghasemi, H.R.; Fernández, M.P.; Cerdà, A. The potential of straw mulch as a nature-based solution for soil erosion in olive plantation treated with glyphosate: A biophysical and socioeconomic assessment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rudolph, A.; Helming, K.; Diestel, H. Effect of antecedent soil water content and rainfall regime on microrelief changes. Soil Technol. 1997, 10, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Asai, H.; Samson, B.K.; Stephan, H.M.; Songyikhangsuthor, K.; Homma, K.; Kiyono, Y.; Inoue, Y.; Shiraiwa, T.; Horie, T. Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in Northern Laos. Field Crop. Res. 2009, 111, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Laird, D.A.; Fleming, P.; Davis, D.D.; Horton, R.; Wang, B.; Karlen, D.L. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 2010, 158, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Orsham, A.; Akhond Ali, A.M.; Behnia, A. Effect study of soil moistures on amounts of runoff and sediment using simulated rainfall. Iran. Iran. J. Range Desert Res. 2010, 16, 445–455. [Google Scholar]
Water 12 02518 g001 550
Figure 1. A view of dried soil in an open area (a) and the plots filled with pumice grains (b).
Figure 1. A view of dried soil in an open area (a) and the plots filled with pumice grains (b).
Water 12 02518 g001
Water 12 02518 g002a 550Water 12 02518 g002b 550
Figure 2. A view of applied straw mulches of colza (a), corn (b) and combined colza and corn (c).
Figure 2. A view of applied straw mulches of colza (a), corn (b) and combined colza and corn (c).
Water 12 02518 g002aWater 12 02518 g002b
Water 12 02518 g003 550
Figure 3. A view of the rainfall simulator at the laboratory of Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
Figure 3. A view of the rainfall simulator at the laboratory of Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
Water 12 02518 g003
Water 12 02518 g004 550
Figure 4. Laboratory measurements of runoff volume and soil loss.
Figure 4. Laboratory measurements of runoff volume and soil loss.
Water 12 02518 g004
Water 12 02518 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of colza straw mulch (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Figure 5. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of colza straw mulch (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Water 12 02518 g005
Water 12 02518 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of corn straw mulch (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Figure 6. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of corn straw mulch (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Water 12 02518 g006
Water 12 02518 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of colza + corn straw mulches (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Figure 7. Comparison of soil loss and sediment concentration at different levels of colza + corn straw mulches (above) and soil moisture conditions (below), based on the Duncan test.
Water 12 02518 g007
Table
Table 1. Soil erosion results under different soil moisture conditions and straw mulch covers. C, control; M, mulched; ASM%, antecedent soil moisture; R, runoff; SC, sediment concentration; SL, soil loss.
Table 1. Soil erosion results under different soil moisture conditions and straw mulch covers. C, control; M, mulched; ASM%, antecedent soil moisture; R, runoff; SC, sediment concentration; SL, soil loss.
TreatmentCover%ASM%R (L)SC (g L−1)SL (g)
CMCMCM
colza2503.4503.1315635193111
154.0283.5205148202171
204.7103.9905647266188
305.5014.8589446522224
Mean4.4223.87464.2544295.75173.5
5003.4501.863562919355
154.0282.038514120283
204.7103.913562126685
305.5014.5439423.05522104
Mean4.4223.08964.2528.51295.7581.75
7503.4501.293562219329.06
154.0281.821513020258
204.7103.725561826668
305.5014.203941952283
Mean4.4222.76064.2522.25295.7559.51
Corn25>0>3.4503.2135618>193>60
154.0283.963512220289
204.7104.6405633266155
305.5015.3469445522241
Mean4.4224.29064.2529.5295.75136.25
5003.4502.901561319340
154.0283.656511720264
204.7104.451561426664
305.5014.726941752279
Mean4.4223.93364.2515.25295.7561.75
7503.4502.25156519312
154.0283.33051920230
204.7104.31356826636
305.5014.583941152252
Mean4.4223.61964.258.25295.7532.5
colza+ corn2503.4503.1435633193103
154.0283.5015138202134
204.7103.6505652266185
305.5013.9059457522225
Mean4.4223.56164.2545.25295.75478.25
5003.4502.430562419359
154.0283.283512720290
204.7103.4565635266121
305.5013.6569442522155
Mean4.4223.20664.2532295.75106.25
7503.4501.77656819315
154.0282.883511320240
204.7103.203561626658
305.5013.466942352282
Mean4.4222.83264.2515295.7551.22
Table
Table 2. General linear model test after applying the one way and two-way ANOVAs per soil moisture condition and straw mulch application, considering soil loss and sediment concentration.
Table 2. General linear model test after applying the one way and two-way ANOVAs per soil moisture condition and straw mulch application, considering soil loss and sediment concentration.
SourceDependent VariabledfMean SquareValue FSignificant Level
Soil moisturecolzaSediment concentration (g L−1)3301.03580.000 **
Soil loss (g)340,821970.000 **
cornSediment concentration (g L−1)3860300.000 **
Soil loss (g)351,212119.090.000 **
colza + cornSediment concentration (g L−1)31429.09480.000 **
Soil loss (g)354,7721240.000 **
Straw mulchescolzaSediment concentration (g L−1)342151210.000 **
Soil loss (g)3138,305.083290.000 **
CornSediment concentration (g L−1)374762620.000 **
Soil loss (g)3166,6033870.000 **
colza + cornSediment concentration (g L−1)350691710.000 **
Soil loss (g)3134,0753050.000 **
Moisture × Straw mulchcolzaSediment concentration (g L−1)9453310.000 **
Soil loss (g)913,36213.040.000 **
cornSediment concentration (g L−1)927090.000 **
Soil loss (g)913,733310.000 **
colza + cornSediment concentration (g L−1)917250.000 **
Soil loss (g)911,013250.000 **
df: Degree of freedom, **: Significant in 99%.
Table
Table 3. Percentage of changes in soil erosion results after the application of colza, corn and colza + corn straw mulches, under different soil moisture level conditions. ASM, antecedent soil moisture; R, runoff; SC, sediment concentration; SL, soil loss.
Table 3. Percentage of changes in soil erosion results after the application of colza, corn and colza + corn straw mulches, under different soil moisture level conditions. ASM, antecedent soil moisture; R, runoff; SC, sediment concentration; SL, soil loss.
TreatmentASM (%) R SC SL
25%50%75%25%50%75%25%50%75%
09.244662.5237.548.2160.7142.4871.5084.94
1512.6149.4054.795.8819.6041.1715.3458.9171.28
colza2015.2816.9220.9116.0762.567.8529.3268.0474.43
3011.6817.4123.5951.0675.4779.7857.0880.0784.09
Mean12.2032.4340.4527.6251.4562.3836.0669.6378.69
06.8615.9134.7567.8576.7891.0768.9179.2793.78
151.619.2317.3256.8666.6682.3555.9468.3185.14
corn201.485.498.4241.077585.7141.7275.9386.46
302.8114.0816.6852.1281.9188.2953.8384.8690.03
Mean3.1911.1719.2954.4775.0986.8555.1077.0988.85
08.8929.5648.5241.0757.1485.7146.6369.4392.22
1513.0818.4928.4225.4947.0574.5033.6655.4480.19
colza + corn2022.5026.6231.997.1437.571.4230.4554.5178.19
3029.0133.5336.9939.3655.3175.5356.8970.3084.29
Mean18.3727.0536.4828.2649.2576.7941.9162.4283.72

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kavian, A.; Kalehhouei, M.; Gholami, L.; Jafarian, Z.; Mohammadi, M.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. The Use of Straw Mulches to Mitigate Soil Erosion under Different Antecedent Soil Moistures. Water 2020, 12, 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092518

AMA Style

Kavian A, Kalehhouei M, Gholami L, Jafarian Z, Mohammadi M, Rodrigo-Comino J. The Use of Straw Mulches to Mitigate Soil Erosion under Different Antecedent Soil Moistures. Water. 2020; 12(9):2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092518

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kavian, Ataollah, Mahin Kalehhouei, Leila Gholami, Zeinab Jafarian, Maziar Mohammadi, and Jesús Rodrigo-Comino. 2020. "The Use of Straw Mulches to Mitigate Soil Erosion under Different Antecedent Soil Moistures" Water 12, no. 9: 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092518

APA Style

Kavian, A., Kalehhouei, M., Gholami, L., Jafarian, Z., Mohammadi, M., & Rodrigo-Comino, J. (2020). The Use of Straw Mulches to Mitigate Soil Erosion under Different Antecedent Soil Moistures. Water, 12(9), 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092518

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop